The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) ruled Friday that in order for X (formerly Twitter) to resume activities in Brazil, it must prove payment of the fines imposed for non-compliance with the court’s order to appoint a legal representative in Brazil.
Brazil, with more than 21.5 million X users, is a major market for the social media platform. X sent a document to the STF earlier this week stating it has blocked nine accounts under investigation in a hate speech and misinformation probe and appointed a legal representative to represent the company in Brazil. STF Justice Alexandre de Moraes ruled that the fines, totaling R$18.3 million must be paid first.
Brazil originally gave X a 24-hour deadline to appoint a legal representative in the country, but after X failed to do so, Justice Moraes ordered the company to suspend operations in Brazil. However, after Brazil’s National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) reported an update to X’s application that provided users access to the platform, the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered a daily fine of R$5 million to be imposed on the platform and a daily fine of R$50,000 on individuals and entities attempting to bypass the suspension using technological means such as virtual private networks (VPNs). X now owes a total of R$10 million for failure to comply for two days, on top of several other fines.
Elon Musk, who has branded himself as a champion of free speech, has been having an ongoing censorship battle with Justice Moraes. Justice Moraes froze both X’s and Musk-owned satellite internet provider Starlink’s accounts in Brazil. Musk responded by saying “Alexandre de Moraes is an evil dictator cosplaying as a judge.”
The Global Government Affairs team at X addresed the situation Thursday stating:
X is committed to protecting free speech within the boundaries of the law and we recognize and respect the sovereignty of the countries in which we operate. We believe that the people of Brazil having access to X is essential for a thriving democracy, and we will continue to defend freedom of expression and due process of law through legal processes.
